Clark and Hatfield (1989)

• Aim: 

  To investigate gender differences in attitudes towards casual sex.
• Procedure:


  • Field experiment on a university campus in Florida
  • Participants approached by confederates of the opposite sex (of average attractiveness)
  • Asked one of three questions:

  1. "Would you go out with me tonight?"
  2. "Would you come over to my apartment tonight?"
  3. "Would you go to bed with me tonight?"
• Results:

  • None of the women agreed to casual sex
  • 70% of the men agreed to casual sex
• Conclusion:

  • Supports the theory that women are more selective in mate choice due to higher investment in pregnancy
  • Men are less selective, aligning with the strategy to "mate widely"
• Limitations:

  1. Ethical concerns (use of deception)
  2. Cultural specificity (may not generalize beyond US)
  3. Temporal validity issues (pre-AIDS era)
  4. Alternative explanations not ruled out (e.g., social norms, safety concerns)
  5. Limited sample (university students)
  6. Narrow focus (heterosexual interactions only)
  7. Simplistic measure (binary yes/no response)
• Strengths:

  1. High ecological validity (real-world setting)
  2. Experimental control (field experiment design)
  3. Replicability (successful replications over time)
  4. Supports evolutionary theory (parental investment)
• Connect to To the EvolutionaryTheory: 


  Women invest more in prodcuing offspring, more öicky and therefore more likely to say no to casual sex
• Research Method:feild experiment